a) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" says that auth_pop and auth_imap have
the
same control files as qmail-lspawn: not true because qmail-lspawn does
not
read "ldaprebind" while auth_imap and auth_pop do.
Wrong qmail-lspawn reads ldaprebind. It does not use it but it reads the
file.
But "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not say that neither. According to
"THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE", the ldaprebind file doesn't even exist.
b) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not say which program reads the
"cert.pem" control file. But qmail-control(5) will show that for you.
Cert.pem is not directly read by any qmail-ldap tool. qmail-smtpd reads
now smtpcert and decides from there which cert should be used.
Thanks by introducing me to smtpcert, another control files not mentioned
on "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE". qmail-control(5) will report its existence
for the mainstream.
Btw. there is also a ENV to override smtpcert.
One more "complicateness" of qmail-ldap. This will fit smoothly on the
"overriden" column of "THE CONTROL FILES TABLE" in qmail-control(5)
"Furthermore, Qmail-ldap broke down stock Qmail's rule that 1 control
file
is read by only 1 qmail-program."
Wrong. ~control/me is read by more than one qmail-program.
I know that. But in Qmail, "me" is the default for almost everything. And
besides "me", no other control file is read by two different programs.
There are a few more files that behave similar.
Would you give me an example? I really cannot guess what.
The documentation location table is plain worng and super ugly.
Explain to me why is it wrong, please.
It remebers me too much of unpleasant Solaris nightmares.
Come on Claudio, this is bullshit. We're system administrators, not graphic
designers. Please evaluate the table for what it informs, not by how it
looks. Btw, that yellow flower on the upper left corner of the Main_Page is
also a nightmare. (hehehe)
Just make a page per config file. This is a web-page and even for
manpages I would do it
like this. There is no need to save inodes.
I'm not thinking in saving inodes when I'm grouping the control-files. By
creating a manpage for each control file my intention was not to polute the
Section 5 with 30 more manpages. And I believe that grouping those files
that way increases the awareness of the functionality of those files.
But if people think I should do that, I just have an idea: I could create
the manpages for the shared control files with a "qmail-control" radical.
Like this:
- qmail-control-ldaprebind(5)
- qmail-control-ldapbasedn(5)
- qmail-control-ldappassword(5)
- qmail-control-dirmaker(5)
- qmail-control-etc(5)
This won't be terrible.
Best regards,
bruno.
